Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Washington & Faneca

0 views
Skip to first unread message

John C TX

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 9:17:20 AM9/27/10
to
As good as I feel right now I would like to know which of our brain
trust made these moves? Faneca could have been on the bench for $!MM
more than he is costing us. Were they that afraid he would outplay
the rookie & Slausson & force his way on the field? I would love to
hear the REAL reason.

As for Leon, his agent is still a putz for not taking the jets deal
last year but wouldn't it be nice having him running back kicks
&running the ball 10 times a game? Joe McKnight, ughhhhh.

I know it is a done deal but I still have a bad feeling that these two
moves wlll hurt us.

CaptMyng

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 9:48:09 AM9/27/10
to

T. Jones - 95 yrds rushing
L. Washington - 2 kickoff returns for TDs

But you know what?
I wouldn't trade you LT for the both of them.

John C TX

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 10:04:33 AM9/27/10
to

I agree. The TJ move scared me but LT was a good risk to take.

Leon is a whole different situation. We could still have him. The
jets probably had internal salary cap & his $1.6 MM was too much.

Harlan Lachman

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 10:58:55 AM9/27/10
to
In article
<1900ac03-76d0-46fa...@x12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

John, I think it was not the 1.6 MM. I think it was the fact that he
wanted much more money, had an agent and wife who may have held him out,
and the Jets (and I) still are not sure he should be paid starting RB
money.

Harlan

John C TX

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 11:27:42 AM9/27/10
to
On Sep 27, 9:58 am, Harlan Lachman <har...@eeivt.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1900ac03-76d0-46fa-bfcd-eb5566ec3...@x12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

H, I realize long term he would have cost more, but we could have
tendered him for one year and lost him after the season or signed him
long term as LT's replacement. In an uncapped year it was cheap
insurance.

Michael

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 11:54:31 AM9/27/10
to
On Sep 27, 9:17 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:

the faneca deal, i suspect was a "two part" reasoning. first, he is
not going to get better with age. no chance. second, as i posted
before, some diehard steeler fans have told me faneca was "bucking the
system" there. he was smarter than the coaches. a quiet "loose
cannon" this is what several have told me. i'd bet he was upsetting
the apple cart in a quiet sort of manner. you also know my feeling
about slauson in the tampa game. he looked to be able to get the job
done. it is still way early to write him off. brick had more growing
pains and he was a first rounder. another guy they had jeff criswell
was the lord high king of false starts for two seasons before he
became an excellent starter. mangold made mental mistakes too.

leon was also a two parter. the injury rehab question, and the money/
contract stuff. both, leon and faneca decisions minus hindsight were
IMHO both smart plays by the jets.

Message has been deleted

Michael

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 12:33:09 PM9/27/10
to
On Sep 27, 12:26 pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >leon and faneca decisions minus hindsight were
> >IMHO both smart plays by the jets.
>
> And minus hindsight one couldn't possibly support the opinions being
> thrown around that Tomlinson was a better choice than Leon.
> --
> graybeard

im just floored by Tomlinson. i thought he was a spent player. he
looks like the best guy on the field.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Harlan Lachman

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 12:47:25 PM9/27/10
to
In article
<7f9b3c85-e3c7-4e4c...@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

Like SD did with Vincent Jackson and McNeil?

I think Seattle got a better deal from Leon than we would have. He
expected more from the Jets.

Frankly, in his last game, Leon had one carry for no yards. I am still
convinced signing him to the big bucks made no sense and he and his
agent mistakenly turned down a very good offer that I doubt he will get
elsewhere.

h

papa.carl44

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 1:05:17 PM9/27/10
to

"buRford" <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
news:jth1a6drd50eoltho...@4ax.com...
> I never thought that. I figured his injuries were the issue, then the
> Chargers changed
> away from him.
> I never had a problem with dumping TJ, or bringing in LT (Leon was a
> different story).
> I am, though, a bit concerned that they're using LT too much now, and he
> may start fading,
> as the season progresses.
> Hopefully, Greene wasn't seriously injured last night.
> If he's healthy, I think the Jets should start letting him carry his
> weight... just like
> they seem to be letting Sanchez carry his. And use LT more economically,
> so he's fresher
> late in the season.

I question if Greene can carry his weight. If a guy gets hurt, minor stuff,
a lot in practice he becomes someone you hold back on. He may run tough
when he is in there (albeit not always with his eyes) but he may be on the
edge of injury all the time. To me, it looks like LT just gets it done in a
much more secure way.


John C (tx)

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 1:08:15 PM9/27/10
to

Michael, as i have said all along the Faneca deal must not entirely be
a about football as only an idiot gets rid of a starter for $1MM. I
don't know what happened in Pittsburgh but I do remember Manold was
sick after the trade.

So you can honestly say that in an uncapped year you would rather not
have Washington & Faneca on the bench for $2MM, plus possibly have
players we would have drafted in the 2nd, 4th & 6th rounder in 2010
that we used drafting Ducasse & McKnight?

John C TX

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 1:51:16 PM9/27/10
to
On Sep 27, 12:05 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:
> "buRford" <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jth1a6drd50eoltho...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>

Papa, one personnel move I hate is keeping McKnight. OK we paid him
$450,000 in a bonus but is there anyone that thinks McKnight is better
than Chauncey Washington? If Greene goes down after Holmes returns
Clowney is cut to get McKnight & Washington on the roster.

Glenn Greenstein

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 2:01:49 PM9/27/10
to

The words Jeff Chriswell and excellent starter should never be used in
the same sentence.
Don't agree with your comparison of DaBrick to Slauson. You could see
DaBrick had all the talent to become an excellent starter, he just
needed to be more consistant, on the other hand, Slauson has been
ordinary to down right bad and he gets tagged with these penalties at
the wost times. He is also as likely to get Sanchez killed as Faneca
was. Vlad IMO is a long way off from being an NFL O lineman.

Michael

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 2:13:12 PM9/27/10
to
> was. Vlad IMO is a long way off from being an NFL O lineman.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

i dont agree with criswell... he did good work once he stopped jumping
off sides. not pro-bowl guy, but decent. and as for brick... there
were a lot of smart fans that had him tagged as a bust. both for
mental mistakes and lack of brute power. it is way to early to make
the final call on slauson. to me vlad looks like a never ending
project. that bad word "potential". way too early to make the call
on him too.

John C TX

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 2:28:32 PM9/27/10
to

OL are tough to judge especially this early. Slausson will never do
what Faneca could do but he could have more power on straight ahead
run blocking. Ducasse is way too early to judge. I saw an
interesting quote from Madden recently. He was talking about the OL
and in his days of coaching he thought it took 5 years to be starter
and admitted that can't happen today.

Michael

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 2:45:53 PM9/27/10
to
> and admitted that can't happen today.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

years ago, it did take a lot of time to get up to speed. these days,
you have a lot of guys including qb's that jump right in as rookies
and make a good show of it including qb's. obviously, the college
ranks are serious business now. almost nfl type pressure for them to
learn under and pro style offense. the kids coming out of the major
schools are almost pros. the recent trend of rookie qb's doing well
out of the starting gate is going to continue. what coaches get to
work with now right out of the draft is miles ahead of what madden got
usually

John C TX

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 4:37:24 PM9/27/10
to

Michael, surprise, I disagree. I don't think it was getting up to
speed as players were probably on average smarter 30 years ago. They
also all had 4 years of college ball.

Madden's point was the pressure to play these players is driven from
the money they are paid. You can't pay a 1st or 2nd rounder to sit on
the bench for 5 years.

Michael

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 4:42:53 PM9/27/10
to

... we are both seeing two very different things. i cant agree with
you here. not a bit.

> Madden's point was the pressure to play these players is driven from
> the money they are paid.  You can't pay a 1st or 2nd rounder to sit on

> the bench for 5 years.- Hide quoted text -

MZ

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 4:50:56 PM9/27/10
to
On 9/27/2010 4:42 PM, Michael wrote:
> On Sep 27, 4:37 pm, John C TX<johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 1:45 pm, Michael<mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 27, 2:28 pm, John C TX<johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sep 27, 1:13 pm, Michael<mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 27, 2:01 pm, Glenn Greenstein<lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Sep 27, 11:54 am, Michael<mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 27, 9:17 am, John C TX<johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> As good as I feel right now I would like to know which of our brain
>>>>>>>> trust made these moves? Faneca could have been on the bench for $!MM
>>>>>>>> more than he is costing us. Were they that afraid he would outplay
>>>>>>>> the rookie& Slausson& force his way on the field? I would love to

I'm curious, if OL is a position that takes a long time to master, which
positions don't? Which positions see an immediate impact? From my
observations, I'd say that both lines, cornerback, and possibly running
back tend to catch on the quickest and reach their maximal impact sooner
than the other positions. The longest would be QB obviously, and then
safety, linebacker, and probably TE. WR is probably somewhere in the
middle. Do you guys see things differently? Apparently Madden does...

Michael

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 5:00:01 PM9/27/10
to
> middle.  Do you guys see things differently?  Apparently Madden does...- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

complex question. in general ??? qb the longest, rb the shortest. in
a 34 d, olb can take longer... or may be not. d-line guys in general
make an impact sooner than their o-line counter parts. on the o-line
there are a lot of fast learners and slow ones too. especally the
tackles. so... lets say fastest to slowest

1. rb
2. d-line
3. 0-line
4. cb
5. wr (some fast, some slow)
6. s
7. lb (esp 34 OLB)
8. qb

John C TX

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 6:26:55 PM9/27/10
to

Mark, I need to find that piece I read. He referred to the economic
pressure -- a rookie could be eating up to 5% of cash & you only have
them 5-6 years-- at OL he may also have been talking about size. I
looked up Ron Yary as he was great tackle & of that era. He was 6'5"
and a whopping 255 lbs. So putting size on these guys may have been
his point as well.

I would put it in this order: RB, CB, WR, DL, OL,S & TE (tie), LB

This isn't a simple formula as smarts, mental & physical toughness can
overcome a shortfall in talent but it works both ways.

John C TX

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 6:40:04 PM9/27/10
to

Michael, it is fact that almost all players in Madden's time had 4
years of college experience. I would also bet that must college
players in the 50's & less so in the 60's but many showed up to get an
education so my bet is that they were smarter. Today, & tih sis jusmy
gut feeling & not quantifiable, I bet there are a higher % of idiots
in college programs.

Today I would bet that a lion's share of college teams run the
spread. Why would you think that is harder to understand than the
veer, wishbone or what was run in the 60's?

Finally, you don' have to be a genius to play football. At the end of
the day it is a boxing match on a field. Except for the inclusion of
more African -Americans what is the difference in who plays?

Michael

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 6:49:59 PM9/27/10
to
> more African -Americans what is the difference in who plays?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

as far as pure football skills and physical tools, the guys coming out
of college today are closer to the pro level than they were in the
60's. The entire system from hs to guys leaving college has evolved.
im not giving facts to qualify that, but to me it is apparant. we
just done see it the same way.

papa.carl44

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 11:34:01 PM9/27/10
to

"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c26a2fb4-3521-4010...@l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

John is right on this....way more of the colleges play pure pro offenses,
it's not like a bunch of veer and option stuff nowadays...so the players
have an easier time adapting...but, I think the guys back a couple of
decades probably were smarter in terms of graduation etc. AND...the ones
who go first round, get to play quicker because of salaries.


papa.carl44

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 11:39:46 PM9/27/10
to

"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:t5WdnWPAL4YsnjzR...@giganews.com...

Really good question. Fist, I think it really is individual...soem just
have it and others have to grow into it. But....I think WR have a chance to
do somethings early provided they have the right skills. I don't mean
purely speed and size...but guys who are smart at the game, like Chrebet
was. They seem to have some impact quickly. I think a running back could
have early impact too. On defense it's probably a D back who changes things
quickly because he has the talent...that talent is rare and someone who is a
natural shows up right away. O lineman take a bit of coaching because it is
a different skill set they have to learn. I agree that LB's are the hardest
on defense.....that is a bear of a position to get right. The way they play
TE's today...it all depends on the offense I think. I think you may be
right too about safety...they need to be very smart.


MZ

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 11:53:22 PM9/27/10
to

I remember reading something from Belichick last year where he talked
about how much more cerebral safety is instead of CB. He pretty much
echoed what you said about corner -- that they can rely on their raw
talent to make a splash quickly. That doesn't bode well for Wilson.

But I have seen some corners take a long time to get it. Asante Samuel
really took about two-and-a-half or three years to show that he could be
a starter.

Michael

unread,
Sep 28, 2010, 12:12:01 AM9/28/10
to
On Sep 27, 11:34 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:c26a2fb4-3521-4010...@l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> who go first round, get to play quicker because of salaries.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

you mean i am right. i am the one saying that players from college
can jump right into the pros more so now than then because colleges
now play a lot of pro offense. the college system has evolved to be
so big now that even the draft is prime time entertainment. it is pro
light. it is why we are seeing more and more rookie qb's do well out
of the starting gate. i have been saying that all along. as far as
scholastic level... from a pure pro football stand point, who
cares ??? football smarts and ability are needed to be a good pro,
not scholarship. saying that scholarship is very important is just as
silly as saying it is all about the "hard nosed", "go hard or go home"
bs i hear some people spout. for instance... some one thought
singetary was a coach that "gets it" because he's one of those "hard
nosed" guys. i felt he lacked depth. rowan had lots of that "go hard
or go home" spirit. you wanna take them out against Alabama ??? it is
silly to think the college guys from 30 years ago were more pro ready
than the current college guys. that includes guys with abbreviated
college careers like the rookie qb that was 20 min from the superbowl
last year.

papa.carl44

unread,
Sep 28, 2010, 1:25:38 AM9/28/10
to

"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:4vKdnapfWvMp-zzR...@giganews.com...

Safeties are different.....it is a very hard position to coach too I think.
To me, even in high school the corners were more about raw talent and
basketball type skills, the safety had to understand and see the whole field
and know what I wanted out there, they also had to work more closely with
the linebackers and get everyone in the right place. No, it doesn't bode
well for Wilson...but then he may have been confused with stuff that was not
his fault. We'll have to see....that was two brand new guys at
corner...Cromartie does the job..but he doesn't know the system completely
and if Wilson was relying on him for explanations it may have gotten messed
up. Stilll.....a really good corner, speed, lots of "basketball" skills and
a competitor can play right away sometimes, even in high school. A lot of
times they just have to slow somebody up too...and the big guys come and
clean it up....a safety has to make that hit.


papa.carl44

unread,
Sep 28, 2010, 1:27:35 AM9/28/10
to

"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5f951481-2e21-41d8...@h25g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

The style of the game they play is more similar from high school
up...sometimes....but the skill set of lineman was better back then and they
could fit in more easily...today the way they block is totally different.


papa.carl44

unread,
Sep 28, 2010, 1:30:32 AM9/28/10
to

"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4769397a-ac69-4fc0...@w4g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...

They have an easier time adapting to learning the plays etc...they have
played a pro set, drop back, all the same type offenses...but the level of
the game is vastly different and for O lineman the blocking is very
different.....we could go on about this one forever....athleticism is much
higher now and means more because of the rules of the game......look at all
the true freshman playing college ball...big difference and it is all about
rule changes and more pure athletes playing now.


John C TX

unread,
Sep 28, 2010, 9:12:40 AM9/28/10
to
On Sep 28, 12:30 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message

It also important to note that I am not saying the 1968 grad from
Alabama is on par athletically with the 2010 grad. The 1968 grad
played in 1968 not today. When you pay a guy $50,000 per year it is
easier to be patient than it s when you are paying him $6MM.

Coaching & training techniques-- not the coaches themselves--in most
areas have dramatically improved. In some areas of development
players have taken a step back because of specialization. A good
example is the spread which has hurt blocking skills of OL & WR.
In1968 a pass rushing end like Gholston wouldn't exist unless he could
do it all.

As for smarts, give me 40 smart tough guys over 40 stupid tough guys
any day.

Michael

unread,
Sep 28, 2010, 9:39:53 AM9/28/10
to
> any day.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

An ideal would be to have 53 smart tuff guys. No argument there.
Though... If you want to win in the NFL, you would be better off with
the USC football Sr. graduating class than you would be with the
Harvard football Sr. Graduating class. The guys from Harvard are tuff
too...They play as hard as they can and they sacrafice. The guys on a
lot of div III teams are tuff, blue collar types that are smart and
give it their all too. The nature of it now is that the college
football pipeline to the NFL is for the most part a concentrated
singular pipeline. The valves are open for the high octane guys.
Smart ones and not so smart ones. As long as they have top of the
line football skills.

Michael

unread,
Sep 28, 2010, 9:48:35 AM9/28/10
to
On Sep 28, 1:30 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> rule changes and more pure athletes playing now.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

we are both saying the same thing... i agree with what you are
saying. i also agree that the scholastic standards were better many
years ago. college kids were there to get an education. football was
part of the education. it was done for love and for the sake of the
game and to compeet. it was pure. a good indication of how things
have changed... look at the bribes that schools get snaged offering to
agents and players... it is not education... it is business...

papa.carl44

unread,
Sep 28, 2010, 10:26:49 AM9/28/10
to

"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:92244d4b-266d-4b37...@h7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

Just as a point of reference. I graduated in 1966...during the '65 football
season the nose guard (that's what they called them) from Alabama was about
195 pounds...I remember that because it was the rationale I was given by
coaches when they told me I was going to play in a down position in many of
our sets. The defensive tackles along side of me were around 245 or so one
more. The entire scheme was built on execution and speed. I was reading
and slanting almost all the time, then I'd either stand up or align way off
the ball and have a read in a bubble type deal. The collective of a team
doing this meant more coordination and everyone being on the same page.
Today with the size and athletic ability it's more about individual
performances. The current day size and speed has totally changed the game.


papa.carl44

unread,
Sep 28, 2010, 10:32:40 AM9/28/10
to

"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4d767fa4-cd8f-45dc...@w19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

Some of the business stuff went on back then too. And, a lot of us went to
school to play ball...BUT, we had to do a lot of stuff to keep that
privelage and did not get a lot of special treatment. About as much special
treatment I can remember was not having any freshman hazing allowed with us,
eating in a separate dining hall and getting tutored if needed...and it was
serious stuff, made to do the work. I don't think I'd have made it out of
school with the level of achievement I did without the monitoring of a
coach, they made us work, kept us on task and held us accountable. I really
appreciated that.


Michael

unread,
Sep 28, 2010, 11:18:06 AM9/28/10
to
On Sep 28, 10:32 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> appreciated that.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

papa... an interesting tid-bit for you. I have two older brothers.
One went to a college with a major div I football and basketball
team. The other went to a school that had token athletics much like
the college i went to. the one that went to the school with the minor
sports program is a football fan. The one that went to the div I
school has two phd's now and is a respected scientist. when he was in
grad school he was a professors aid and had to tutor students
including some athletes. because of what they let the kids get away
with, he despises anything to do with college athletics. he felt that
they were a major disruption to the colleges central mission. he does
not like football at all. his belief is that it does nothing more
than tech stupidity and brutality.

John C TX

unread,
Sep 28, 2010, 4:44:08 PM9/28/10
to

Smarts will only make up for so much of a talent shortfall. The
talent gap, top to bottom, between Rice & even Houston when compared
to Texas, USC, etc. are huge. Rice would probably beat Harvard by 40
points.

John C TX

unread,
Sep 28, 2010, 4:47:04 PM9/28/10
to

btw someone mentioned Singletary. A friend went to Baylor at the same
time. Baylor took attendance & Singletary showed up for every class
in a shirt & tie and a briefcase. He knew why he was there.

Michael

unread,
Sep 28, 2010, 10:00:09 PM9/28/10
to

he was also a hof quality player. i'm not so sure how he'll make out
as hc. the defensive effort his team gave against the saints was
fantastic. and then they look horrible. it appears to be coaching
issues...

John C TX

unread,
Sep 29, 2010, 10:00:52 AM9/29/10
to

It may take a him another team to be successful. His style may lead to
swings.

If I was college program that wanted no nonsense players I would grab
him. Any African -American family, any family, who was smart enough
to hope for the NFL but want a degree for their kid would be first in
line. You wouldn't get Pac Man Jones but you would get the next Mike
Singeltary.

Michael

unread,
Sep 29, 2010, 12:36:54 PM9/29/10
to

i hope he does well. his values are admirable. "no fighting" or
monkey business at practice and camp... hard nosed playing, unselfish
team players... no "me" players... it may be a bit of a disadvange or
it may not, but he seems to like assistant guys that think just like
that too. hard nosed throw backs like manusky. i could be wrong, but
i think he'll need offensive and defensive coordiantors with lots of
depth instead of just guys with hard-nosed values to bring to the
table. that is what i think... he'll be a good guy to mold a team
around his quality values, but he may need some more depth and
sophistication from his assistants.

John C TX

unread,
Sep 29, 2010, 12:59:36 PM9/29/10
to

& like BB may need to fail once.

0 new messages